Institutes 4.15.16-17
- Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by
the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God
himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither
gains nor loses by the administrator. And, just as among men, when a letter has been sent,
if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger
was; so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments,
let the administrator be who he may. This confutes the error of the Donatists, who
measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in
the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were
baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism.
Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism
we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever
it may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant
of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with
their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they
invoked was not their own but God’s, nor did they baptise into any other name. But if baptism
was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the
flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ. Thus it did not harm the Jews
that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so
as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin. The objection
that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, does not prove that
it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective. When we show what ought to be done
to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God
though idolaters may corrupt it. Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions,
and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when
they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised
anew.
- Then, again, when they ask us what faith for several years followed our baptism, that
they may thereby prove that our baptism was in vain, since it is not sanctified unless the
word of the promise is received with faith, our answer is, that being blind and unbelieving,
we for a long time did not hold the promise which was given us in baptism, but that still the
promise, as it was of God, always remained fixed, and firm, and true. Although all men
should be false and perfidious, yet God ceases not to be true (Rom. 3:3, 4); though all were
lost, Christ remains safe. We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us
nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected.
Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness
of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that
the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission
of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise
was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it
was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it. Wherefore,
when the Lord invites the Jewish people to repentance, he gives no injunction concerning
another circumcision, though (as we have said) they were circumcised by a wicked and
sacrilegious hand, and had long lived in the same impiety. All he urges is conversion of
heart. For how much soever the covenant might have been violated by them, the symbol of
the covenant always remained, according to the appointment of the Lord, firm and inviolable.
Solely, therefore, on the condition of repentance, were they restored to the covenant which
God had once made with them in circumcision, though this which they had received at the
hand of a covenant-breaking priest, they had themselves as much as in them lay polluted
and extinguished.
Institutes 4.2.10-12
- With regard to the second point, our objections are still stronger. For when the
Church is considered in that particular point of view as the Church, whose judgment we
are bound to revere, whose authority acknowledge, whose admonitions obey, whose censures
dread, whose communion religiously cultivate in every respect, we cannot concede that they
have a Church, without obliging ourselves to subjection and obedience. Still we are willing
to concede what the Prophets conceded to the Jews and Israelites of their day, when with
them matters were in a similar, or even in a better condition. For we see how they uniformly
exclaim against their meetings as profane conventicles, to which it is not more lawful for
them to assent than to abjure God (Isa. 1:14). And certainly if those were churches, it follows,
that Elijah, Micaiah, and others in Israel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and those of like character
in Judah, whom the prophets, priests, and people of their day, hated and execrated more
than the uncircumcised, were aliens from the Church of God. If those were churches, then
the Church was no longer the pillar of the truth, but the stay of falsehood, not the tabernacle
of the living God, but a receptacle of idols. They were, therefore, under the necessity of refusing
consent to their meetings, since consent was nothing else than impious conspiracy
against God. For this same reason, should any one acknowledge those meetings of the present
day, which are contaminated by idolatry, superstition, and impious doctrine, as churches,
full communion with which a Christian must maintain so far as to agree with them even in
doctrine, he will greatly err. For if they are churches, the power of the keys belongs to them,
whereas the keys are inseparably connected with the word which they have put to flight.
Again, if they are churches, they can claim the promise of Christ, “Whatsoever ye bind,”
&c.; whereas, on the contrary, they discard from their communion all who sincerely profess
themselves the servants of Christ. Therefore, either the promise of Christ is vain, or in this
respect, at least, they are not churches. In fine, instead of the ministry of the word, they have
schools of impiety, and sinks of all kinds of error. Therefore, in this point of view, they either
are not churches, or no badge will remain by which the lawful meetings of the faithful can
be distinguished from the meetings of Turks.
- Still, as in ancient times, there remained among the Jews certain special privileges
of a Church, so in the present day we deny not to the Papists those vestiges of a Church
which the Lord has allowed to remain among them amid the dissipation. When the Lord
had once made his covenant with the Jews, it was preserved not so much by them as by its
own strength, supported by which it withstood their impiety. Such, then, is the certainty
and constancy of the divine goodness, that the covenant of the Lord continued there and
his faith could not be obliterated by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned
by their impure hands as not still to he a true sign and sacrament of his covenant. Hence
the children who were born to them the Lord called his own (Ezek. 16:20), though, unless
by special blessing, they in no respect belonged to him. So having deposited his covenant
in Gaul, Italy, Germany, Spain, and England, when these countries were oppressed by the
tyranny of Antichrist, He, in order that his covenant might remain inviolable, first preserved
baptism there as an evidence of the covenant;—baptism, which, consecrated by his lips, retains
its power in spite of human depravity; secondly, He provided by his providence that
there should be other remains also to prevent the Church from utterly perishing. But as in
pulling down buildings the foundations and ruins are often permitted to remain, so he did
not suffer Antichrist either to subvert his Church from its foundation, or to level it with the
ground (though, to punish the ingratitude of men who had despised his word, he allowed
a fearful shaking and dismembering to take place), but was pleased that amid the devastation
the edifice should remain, though half in ruins.
- Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the
Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them. The question we raise only
relates to the true and legitimate constitution of the Church, implying communion in sacred
rites, which are the signs of profession, and especially in doctrine. Daniel and Paul foretold
that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2:4); we regard the Roman
Pontiff as the leader and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. By
placing his seat in the temple of God, it is intimated that his kingdom would not be such as
to destroy the name either of Christ or of his Church. Hence, then, it is obvious that we do
not at all deny that churches remain under his tyranny; churches, however, which by sacrilegious
impiety he has profaned, by cruel domination has oppressed, by evil and deadly
doctrines like poisoned potions has corrupted and almost slain; churches where Christ lies
half-buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety is put to flight, and the worship of God almost
abolished; where, in short, all things are in such disorder as to present the appearance of
Babylon rather than the holy city of God. In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as
the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn
and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain—symbols especially
whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. But as, on the
other hand, those marks to which we ought especially to have respect in this discussion are
effaced, I say that the whole body, as well as every single assembly, want the form of a legitimate
Church.
Comments